Post-amalgamation loss set-off under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 concerns whether an amalgamated company may carry forward and set off the amalgamating company's losses against its own income. The relevant issues include succession to the business and the statutory eight-year limitation on carrying forward losses. The subject matter also includes review proceedings concerning the claimed entitlement to such loss set-off.

Request-specific road restoration performed by a public works department for a business pipeline network constitutes a taxable supply where charges reflect reciprocal restoration work, rather than compensation for breach or damage. Routine road maintenance as a public function does not extend non-supply or exemption treatment to customised services supplied to a business entity. Under reverse charge, the recipient bears GST liability for taxable government services; an unsubstantiated double-taxation plea or refund sanction granted to other State registrations does not establish refund entitlement. Electronically authenticated GST proceedings remain valid where the notice states the factual and legal basis, the recipient responds substantively, and no prejudice arises from absence of a physical DIN.

Request-driven road-restoration services supplied by a government authority to facilitate a business entity's commercial pipeline activity constitute consideration for a taxable supply. Charges linked to permission for road cutting and targeted physical restoration are distinguished from compensation, liquidated damages, and routine public-road maintenance. Governmental-function exclusions and exemptions do not extend to business-specific services, and the recipient business entity is liable for GST under reverse charge where no tax payment under forward charge is established. A notice that adequately discloses the factual and legal basis and is authenticated through the GST portal is not invalid merely because no physical Document Identification Number is present, absent prejudice.

Commercial, request-driven restoration of road damage caused by business pipeline cutting constitutes a taxable supply when a government authority performs it for calculated charges. It is distinguishable from routine public-road maintenance and does not qualify as a sovereign non-supply function or an exemption relating to local-government functions; GST paid under reverse charge is therefore not refundable. Refund orders issued in other jurisdictions neither bind an independent determination nor override statutory conditions. An unsubstantiated allegation of prior forward-charge payment does not displace reverse-charge liability. Refund proceedings remain valid where the notice adequately states the basis for denial and electronic portal authentication establishes the notice and order's identity and integrity despite no physical document identification number.

Road-restoration charges paid by a business entity to a public authority for work requested to facilitate a commercial pipeline project constitute consideration for a taxable supply. The reciprocal arrangement-permission to cut roads in exchange for specified restoration work-supports reverse-charge liability rather than treatment as compensation or damages. Targeted restoration for an identified business project is not a non-supply governmental function or an exempt public-road-maintenance service; exemption provisions require strict construction. Electronically authenticated GST portal proceedings remain valid where the notice discloses the basis of the claim and permits an effective response, despite the absence of a physical Document Identification Number. Consequently, reverse-charge tax on the service is payable and no refund basis arises.

Refund of accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit on coal used for domestic outward supplies requires independent satisfaction of the inverted tax structure conditions under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act. Availability of Compensation Cess credit and absence of blocked-credit restrictions do not themselves create a cash-refund entitlement. Compensation Cess credit remains restricted to payment of Compensation Cess, but non-utilisability against other liabilities is not an independent refund ground. Rule 89(5) applies only after substantive refund eligibility is established. Circulars concerning zero-rated supplies do not support refund claims for domestic supplies merely because the output is not subject to Compensation Cess; the claims were therefore not admissible.

Section 129(4) requires an effective hearing and a reasoned penalty determination addressing the taxpayer's explanation and supporting material. For specified beverages moving between districts in Chhattisgarh, Rule 138(14)(d), read with the relevant notification, retains e-way bill requirements above the prescribed threshold. Payment through DRC-03 to secure release does not waive a statutory challenge or cure defective adjudication. Section 113(1) permits fresh adjudication by the original authority, confined to the existing notice and requiring factual consideration of the explanation for non-generation of the e-way bill.

Penalty under Section 129(1)(a) arises from transportation of goods in contravention of GST requirements and does not require proof of tax-evasion intent, because it addresses breach of a civil obligation. E-way bills expired for several days, without a timely extension or cogent evidence substantiating vehicle breakdown, establish such contravention. Stock-transfer documentation, invoices and e-invoices do not replace the requirement for a valid e-way bill. The Circular exception applies only where goods are accompanied by a valid e-way bill. Expired e-way bills without substantiated justification therefore attract detention and penalty consequences.

Section 129(1) applies to goods transported or stored in contravention of GST requirements without requiring independent proof of intention to evade tax, although explanations for discrepancies remain relevant. An onward supply during transit is permissible under the IGST place-of-supply rule, but does not remove the obligation to maintain e-way bills and other movement records accurately reflecting the physical journey. A live e-way bill for the original destination does not cover a diverted route, while an expired e-way bill showing a dispatch point never reached is materially inaccurate. Combined origin, destination and validity defects constitute substantive contraventions. Payment through DRC-03 for release does not bar appeal, but may be appropriated against the applicable penalty.

Inter-State transit claims concerning undeclared goods require reliable contemporaneous proof that invoices and transport documents cover the consignment, identify genuine transacting parties, and establish the stated out-of-State destination. Invoices and bilties produced after physical verification, without corroboration and containing discrepancies, do not establish genuine transport. A transit-state precedent is inapplicable where its essential facts-documented transactions, identifiable registered parties, acknowledged dealings, and a proven external destination-are absent. Failure to substantiate those matters supports penalty action for undeclared goods.

Detention penalties require an established transport contravention and reasoned consideration of the taxpayer's explanation. Service of FORM GST MOV-07 may be sustained where contemporaneous records and the recipient's response show that the notice was acted upon; however, unresolved notice records, inadequate hearing, or unreasoned findings prevent affirmation of liability. A confined fresh adjudication by the original authority may be necessary where primary evidence concerning vehicle movement and e-way bill compliance remains unresolved. Independent intent to evade need not be proved, but penalty is not automatic. Payment for release does not waive the statutory challenge and must be adjusted or refunded following fresh determination.

Refund of accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit under the inverted duty structure requires satisfaction of the substantive conditions in section 54(3) of the CGST Act: accumulation must result from a higher tax rate on inputs than on output supplies, subject to exclusions for nil-rated or fully exempt supplies. Compensation Cess paid on coal, coupled with no cess on domestic leather-product supplies, does not independently satisfy that test. Input tax credit availability, restricted utilisation under the Compensation Cess Act, and refund entitlement are distinct. Rule 89(5) applies only after statutory eligibility is established; circulars on zero-rated supplies do not support refunds for these domestic supplies.

Section 129(1) of the CGST Act imposes detention and penalty consequences for transporting goods in contravention of the Act or Rules; proof of intent to evade tax is not required because the provision creates a civil penalty based on contravention. E-way bill validity may be extended only within the prescribed eight-hour period after expiry. Transport under e-way bills that expired six days earlier, without a timely extension or credible evidence substantiating vehicle breakdown, constitutes non-compliance. Interstate stock transfers remain subject to e-way bill requirements, and procedural objections do not assist where no prejudice results and evidence can be presented before the final fact-finding authority.

Voluntary pre-notice payment of reconciled GST arising from a clerical omission in monthly returns precludes penalty where the sales were recorded in the books and disclosed in the annual return. Interest on delayed tax payment remains payable despite payment before notice, but must be computed month by month using applicable due dates, actual payment dates, and the portion discharged through the Electronic Cash Ledger, with relevant cash and credit ledger balances verified. Interest cannot be quantified on the entire tax liability without this prescribed ledger-based computation.

Refund claims by unregistered recipients following cancellation of construction or flat-booking agreements are timely when the notified exclusion of 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 is applied to the ordinary two-year limitation period. A subsequent circular cannot operate retrospectively to prejudice the claimant. GST borne by the purchaser and remitted by the developer is refundable where the developer has returned only the non-tax consideration, the prescribed evidence under Rule 89(2) is furnished, and the purchaser is the ultimate consumer. Unjust enrichment does not arise where the purchaser has borne the tax incidence. Interest becomes payable after the stipulated period from the refund application.

Input tax credit cannot be denied solely because of a GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch during the relevant period; eligibility still requires proof that suppliers paid the tax, with the claimant bearing the evidentiary burden. E-way bill-based tax demands do not arise where reconciliation records establish that inward supplies were invoiced and accounted for. Interest on wrongly availed credit applies only to the extent of wrongful utilisation, determined by the electronic credit ledger balance; pre-notice tax payment without payable interest precludes penalty. Unreported sales-return credit notes constitute a compliance lapse but do not alone establish short payment of output tax.

GST appellate rejection without a merits determination cannot stand where compliance with the condition to procure 80% of inputs and input services from registered suppliers requires examination of supporting documents and reconciliations. A reasoned, speaking determination after adequate opportunity of hearing is required. The disputed computation must therefore be adjudicated afresh after considering the requisite documents.

Belated payment of short-paid GST does not extinguish liability for interest on the period of delay. Where short payment of GST is established, the penalty framework for non-registration is distinguishable and does not displace consequences arising from unpaid tax. Failure to pay the tax along with applicable interest within 30 days of a show-cause notice attracts penalty under Section 73(9). Taxpayers remain exposed to interest and penalty despite subsequently making good the underlying tax shortfall.

Correction of an erroneously described respondent in an appeal memorandum may be permitted through substitution of the jurisdictional tax authority where the amendment is formal and unopposed. The respondent's description was corrected, and the appellant was directed to file an amended memorandum of parties. The correction ensures that the appeal record identifies the appropriate jurisdictional respondent without altering the substantive dispute.

GST paid on cancelled airline tickets may be refunded as excess payment of tax where the airline has returned both fare and GST to passengers and cannot adjust credit notes against output tax liability. Linked ticket, invoice, refund voucher, credit note and billing-settlement records establish the refund trail and absence of unjust enrichment. For predominantly business-to-consumer supplies, recipient input tax credit reversal does not arise. A subsequent requirement concerning recipient credit reversal does not apply to the relevant period, supporting refund eligibility.